Wilt Chamberlain

[DAF86]

Is it safe to say that if he would have ended in the Celtics, instead of Russell, he would be the undisputed GOAT right now?

[adonis827]

what if... guess we would not know

[baseline bum]

Don't think he would have been nearly the fit Russell was and West + Baylor would have been able to take multiple titles in the 60s. Russell was the whole reason those Celtics teams were devastating on the break. One of the best things about Wemby's defense is his shot blocks lead to changes in possession at a high rate since he is so early on a lot of his shotblocks that he can spike them downward or tip them to teammates and Russell was even better at that (especially when he could block shots with his fingertips and tap it straight up so he could grab the rebound too). Russell also really knew where his teammates wanted the ball on the break, where they were effective attacking from, where they liked to finish, etc; kind of the same way Rodman was such a lunatic about knowing how different players would miss shots and what direction they were likely to bounce off the rim and all, shit like that. Now if Wilt ever played with a dominant PG like Kareem had in Oscar and Magic that would have really been something but I think those 1960s Celtics teams are significantly worse if you swap Russell out for Chamberlain. They'd win titles but they wouldn't have won 11 of them.

[DAF86]

Don't think he would have been nearly the fit Russell was and West + Baylor would have been able to take multiple titles in the 60s. Russell was the whole reason those Celtics teams were devastating on the break. One of the best things about Wemby's defense is his shot blocks lead to changes in possession at a high rate since he is so early on a lot of his shotblocks that he can spike them downward or tip them to teammates and Russell was even better at that (especially when he could block shots with his fingertips and tap it straight up so he could grab the rebound too). Russell also really knew where his teammates wanted the ball on the break, where they were effective attacking from, where they liked to finish, etc; kind of the same way Rodman was such a lunatic about knowing how different players would miss shots and what direction they were likely to bounce off the rim and all, shit like that. Now if Wilt ever played with a dominant PG like Kareem had in Oscar and Magic that would have really been something but I think those 1960s Celtics teams are significantly worse if you swap Russell out for Chamberlain. They'd win titles but they wouldn't have won 11 of them.

For the sake of argument, let's say they don't win 11, they win 8. Wilt would still be seen as the unquestioned GOAT. The most rings and dominated individually like no other player in history.

Just for the record, I don't buy for one second the Celtics would have won less, they were just that stacked.

[baseline bum]

For the sake of argument, let's say they don't win 11, they win 8. Wilt would still be seen as the unquestioned GOAT. The most rings and dominated individually like no other player in history.

Just for the record, I don't buy for one second the Celtics would have won less, they were just that stacked.

Lakers didn't win any with Wilt, West, and Baylor together. Sam Jones and John Havlicek were hardly the players West and Baylor were.

[Tyronn Lue]

No one from those days will ever be undisputed GOAT. The game doesn't translate well enough to today from a technical difficulty standpoint.

[TD 21]

^ That and bigs generally receive relatively little credit and respect because they're supposedly less "relatable" and marketable.

Media has brainwashed the masses/youth into thinking the league began with Bird, Johnson and Jordan, who then passed it to Bryant and him to James, Durant, Curry.

Chamberlain would probably be the consensus 3rd or 4th GOAT though, while Russell would probably fall out of the top 20 at least.

[DAF86]

Lakers didn't win any with Wilt, West, and Baylor together. Sam Jones and John Havlicek were hardly the players West and Baylor were.

In the 2014 finals, the Heat had, arguably, the 3 best players in the series, yet the Spurs easily dominated them. Sometimes a team is so deep, so well coached and work so well together, that individual talent doesn't matter. Those Celtics were clearly that kind of team.

[baseline bum]

In the 2014 finals, the Heat had, arguably, the 3 best players in the series, yet the Spurs easily dominated them. Sometimes a team is so deep, so well coached and work so well together, that individual talent doesn't matter. Those Celtics were clearly that kind of team.

Gotta disagree, Leonard was way better than Wade in that series and significantly better than Bosh too. Three best players in that Finals were (1) LeBron (2) Kawhi (3) Tim. I also don't really see the Celtics as having that monster of a supporting cast once Cousy retired in 63 (and then Heinsohn a couple years later). Don Nelson and KC Jones are HOFers for their coaching careers. Wilt was a monster when he was focused on the team like in 68 in Philly when his coach dared him to try to lead the league in assists. But Wilt chased stats a lot to the detriment of his team, especially with how he would just refuse to play defense once he got in foul trouble because he wanted to keep his record of never fouling out of a game intact. Lakers actually had a chance to get Wilt in the mid 60s but West and Baylor shot it down because they thought he was a statpadder and didn't come around to him joining until they had gotten their teeth kicked in by Boston a couple more times per Simmons' book.

[DAF86]

Gotta disagree, Leonard was way better than Wade in that series and significantly better than Bosh too. Three best players in that Finals were (1) LeBron (2) Kawhi (3) Tim. I also don't really see the Celtics as having that monster of a supporting cast once Cousy retired in 63 (and then Heinsohn a couple years later). Don Nelson and KC Jones are HOFers for their coaching careers. Wilt was a monster when he was focused on the team like in 68 in Philly when his coach dared him to try to lead the league in assists. But Wilt chased stats a lot to the detriment of his team, especially with how he would just refuse to play defense once he got in foul trouble because he wanted to keep his record of never fouling out of a game intact. Lakers actually had a chance to get Wilt in the mid 60s but West and Baylor shot it down because they thought he was a statpadder and didn't come around to him joining until they had gotten their teeth kicked in by Boston a couple more times per Simmons' book.

Simmons :lol he's basically the Mr. Body of Celtics fans, disguised as a journalist. Of course he's gonna say anything to make Russell look better than Wilt.

I have no idea, because I have never seen Wilt nor Russell play live, I suspect you haven't either. But just by looking at stats and watching tape I think it's pretty safe to say Wilt was a better player than Russell, but Russell just got to play on the most stacked team of the era.

I don't care how much you stat pad, the fact that you say to yourself "this season I'm gonna average 50 ppg", "this season I'm gonna average 30 rpg", "now I'm gonna lead the league in assists", "now I'm gonna average a triple double" and you actually pull it off, it's remarkably to me. It speaks to the kind of individual dominance Wilt had over his peers. How many players in history you think could have pulled that off? How many other players you know of that treated the NBA as their own personal NBA2K "my career" game mode? The answer is "nobody else".

[baseline bum]

Simmons :lol he's basically the Mr. Body of Celtics fans, disguised as a journalist. Of course he's gonna say anything to make Russell look better than Wilt.

I have no idea, because I have never seen Wilt nor Russell play live, I suspect you haven't either. But just by looking at stats and watching tape I think it's pretty safe to say Wilt was a better player than Russell, but Russell just got to play on the most stacked team of the era.


What, do you think he made the story up? And the stacked team argument probably died with Cousy's retirement and certainly did with Heinsohn's retirement.

[ambchang]

Wilt was a huge talent and a serious stat padder. He was Jordan before Jackson and hakeem before Rudy T. All time great who cares more about stats than winning. If wilt had a coach who held him accountable from the start of his career he’d be the goat.

[Raven]

of course it is

[DAF86]

What, do you think he made the story up? And the stacked team argument probably died with Cousy's retirement and certainly did with Heinsohn's retirement.

As if this would be the first time an ancient story gets made up or distorted :lol. And even if it was true, it doesn't prove anything, since they still had to humble themselves and go get Wilt.

With a hand in your heart, just by looking at stats and analyzing them and their impact, do you really think it's likely that Russell was the better player?

[ambchang]

As if this would be the first time an ancient story gets made up or distorted :lol. And even if it was true, it doesn't prove anything, since they still had to humble themselves and go get Wilt.

With a hand in your heart, just by looking at stats and analyzing them and their impact, do you really think it's likely that Russell was the better player?

Shaq have better stats than duncan. Was shaq better?

[DAF86]

Shaq have better stats than duncan. Was shaq better?

Actually, Shaq's prime is probably the most dominant I have ever experienced. I have no problem with folks ranking Shaq ahead of Duncan.

[FrostKing]

Wilt probably crumbles under the "racism" of Boston. Props to Bill. Hank Aaron of NBA.

[ambchang]

Actually, Shaq's prime is probably the most dominant I have ever experienced. I have no problem with folks ranking Shaq ahead of Duncan.

But why would anyone rank duncan over shaq. Shaq had better stats.

[DAF86]

But why would anyone rank duncan over shaq. Shaq had better stats.

The difference between Shaq and Tim's stats aren't as big as Wilt and Russell's.

[Arcadian]

^ That and bigs generally receive relatively little credit and respect because they're supposedly less "relatable" and marketable.

And yet basketball is a game dominated by big men. In any reasonable person's top 10, at least half of them are bigs.

I know you're just reporting what other people think, but I really hate when people make the "relatable" argument. What does that have anything to do with greatness?

[ambchang]

The difference between Shaq and Tim's stats aren't as big as Wilt and Russell's.

But better is better. It should be quite cut and dry if you go by stats alone. That’s your argument isn’t it?

[DAF86]

But better is better. It should be quite cut and dry if you go by stats alone. That’s your argument isn’t it?

Not at all. You can keep trying to be a smartass if you want, though.

[DAF86]

Also, which stats?

Shaq: 23.7 ppg - 10.9 rpg - 2.5 apg - 2.3 rpg - .208 WS/48 - 5.1 BPM

Duncan: 19 ppg - 10.8 rpg - 3 apg - 2.2 bpg - .209 WS/48 - 5.6 bpm

Shaq dominates (some) of the counting numbers but Duncan wins all the advanced metrics. Wilt dominates both over Russell:

Russell: 15.1 ppg - 22.5 rpg - 4.3 apg - .193 WS/48

Wilt: 30.1 ppg - 22.9 rpg - 4.4 apg - .248 WS/48

I think it's clear for anyone not trying to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, that there's a huge difference.

[baseline bum]

With a hand in your heart, just by looking at stats and analyzing them and their impact, do you really think it's likely that Russell was the better player?

You're making a different argument now. Your original argument was that Wilt would be considered the GOAT if he was drafted on the Celtics team that Russell was. I don't think he would because I don't think he would have won 7+ titles beginning his career there, which is the minimum he'd need to eclipse the narrative of Jordan's six titles in a tougher league. Saying he would have won 7 or 8 with Boston's supporting cast is kind of strange when Wilt didn't capture a title with ridiculous supporting casts in LA until his fourth year there.

[ambchang]

Not at all. You can keep trying to be a smartass if you want, though.

So what’s your argument that wilt is clearly better than Russell? I’m not following at all. And questioning you now is a smartaas? How?

[DAF86]

You're making a different argument now. Your original argument was that Wilt would be considered the GOAT if he was drafted on the Celtics team that Russell was. I don't think he would because I don't think he would have won 7+ titles beginning his career there, which is the minimum he'd need to eclipse the narrative of Jordan's six titles in a tougher league. Saying he would have won 7 or 8 with Boston's supporting cast is kind of strange when Wilt didn't capture a title with ridiculous supporting casts in LA until his fourth year there.

How is that a different argument? If Russell won 11 and you think Wilt wouldn't, then the logical conclusion is that you think Russell > Wilt.

[DAF86]

So what’s your argument that wilt is clearly better than Russell? I’m not following at all. And questioning you now is a smartaas? How?

I'm saying I haven't watched either play in real time, so I can't really tell who's better, but by watching at stats and metrics, yeah, they seem to indicate Wilt was clearly the better player.

And before you come with the Shaq/Duncan argument, no, stats don't indicate Shaq is clearly a better player than Duncan.

[TD 21]

You're making a different argument now. Your original argument was that Wilt would be considered the GOAT if he was drafted on the Celtics team that Russell was. I don't think he would because I don't think he would have won 7+ titles beginning his career there, which is the minimum he'd need to eclipse the narrative of Jordan's six titles in a tougher league. Saying he would have won 7 or 8 with Boston's supporting cast is kind of strange when Wilt didn't capture a title with ridiculous supporting casts in LA until his fourth year there.

I don't know if ego/hierarchy/fit/chemistry issues played a part in the Lakers (with 3 of the top 5 or 6 players of the 60s) only winning a single championship, but I do know those things were less likely to be a factor with the Celtics.

Chamberlain is the most difficult player in history to contextualize, but I have a had time seeing a credible argument for a player who wasn't an offensive fulcrum having been better.

[baseline bum]

How is that a different argument? If Russell won 11 and you think Wilt wouldn't, then the logical conclusion is that you think Russell > Wilt.

It's not an easy call in a vacuum. I don't think Wilt would win 11 titles in 13 years in that era. Do you? If Wilt was allowed to use his strength the way Shaq did it's a no-brainer. Wilt over Russell easily under say 2000s NBA officiating. The shit Shaq did would be offensive fouls in Wilt's era though which is why you'd see him shooting those faggy dipsy doo finger rolls all the time instead of going strong in the halfcourt. In the era they played in I'd take Russell, he's a way more potent option for creating easy fast break opportunities when the offensive player didn't get the benefit of every doubt in the halfcourt like they do now. Today I'd probably take Wilt.

[DAF86]

It's not an easy call in a vacuum. I don't think Wilt would win 11 titles in 13 years in that era. Do you? If Wilt was allowed to use his strength the way Shaq did it's a no-brainer. Wilt over Russell easily under say 2000s NBA officiating. The shit Shaq did would be offensive fouls in Wilt's era though which is why you'd see him shooting those faggy dipsy doo finger rolls all the time instead of going strong in the halfcourt. In the era they played in I'd take Russell, he's a way more potent option for creating easy fast break opportunities when the offensive player didn't get the benefit of every doubt in the halfcourt like they do now. Today I'd probably take Wilt.

11 over 13 years is too difficult to replicate. Too many things have to go right for you to win almost every year. I mean if the exact same teams were to replay those 13 years again, it would be hard for the Celtics to win 11 again.

But overall, yeah, I do think Wilt would be extremely succesfull if he had the chance to play with the celtics. Let's sat they don't win 11, they win 8 or 9, Wilt would still be seen as the undisputed GOAT.

[ambchang]

I'm saying I haven't watched either play in real time, so I can't really tell who's better, but by watching at stats and metrics, yeah, they seem to indicate Wilt was clearly the better player.

And before you come with the Shaq/Duncan argument, no, stats don't indicate Shaq is clearly a better player than Duncan.

Shaq had a much higher PPG, slightly higher RPG, slightly higher BPG, which are the main three stats for bigs. He had, i would say quite a few less asts (0.5 out of 2.5 is pretty big), but way higher FG%. I took the counting stats as in Russell and Wilt's years, they didn't really have advanced stats were heavily estimated.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

They didn't have BPM or VORP in those days.

In other words, if you want to compare Russell to Wilt, and use stats, the only stats were pretty much counting stats, which to keep consistent, I can only do for Duncan and Shaq, and it's pretty clear Shaq was better counting stats wise.

[Arcadian]

Shaq had a much higher PPG, slightly higher RPG, slightly higher BPG, which are the main three stats for bigs. He had, i would say quite a few less asts (0.5 out of 2.5 is pretty big), but way higher FG%. I took the counting stats as in Russell and Wilt's years, they didn't really have advanced stats were heavily estimated.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

They didn't have BPM or VORP in those days.

In other words, if you want to compare Russell to Wilt, and use stats, the only stats were pretty much counting stats, which to keep consistent, I can only do for Duncan and Shaq, and it's pretty clear Shaq was better counting stats wise.

I would just like to add that FG% is largely confounded by the distance of shots taken. Shaq probably attempted 98% of his shots within 5 feet, while Tim had a lot more midrange in his game.

[DAF86]

Shaq had a much higher PPG, slightly higher RPG, slightly higher BPG, which are the main three stats for bigs. He had, i would say quite a few less asts (0.5 out of 2.5 is pretty big), but way higher FG%. I took the counting stats as in Russell and Wilt's years, they didn't really have advanced stats were heavily estimated.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

They didn't have BPM or VORP in those days.

In other words, if you want to compare Russell to Wilt, and use stats, the only stats were pretty much counting stats, which to keep consistent, I can only do for Duncan and Shaq, and it's pretty clear Shaq was better counting stats wise.

No need to recount what I already posted with the actual numbers to try and keep forcing an argument that isn't there.

If Wilt averaged 24 ppg and Russell 20, I wouldn't have started this thread. I started this thread because Wilt doubles Russell in pts (30 to 15), because Wilt scored 50 ppg while Russell never scored over 20, because Wilt averaged a triple double while Russell never averaged over 6 assists, because Wilt shot 54% from the field in his career while Russell averaged 44%, and because, although advanced metrics weren't a thing back then, all the advanced metrics that can be figured out from back then favour Wilt.

So once again, I'm gonna kindly ask you to stop trying to force a debate that isn't there and that even you don't believe. Wilt/Russell isn't remotely close to being Shaq/Duncan.

[ambchang]

No need to recount what I already posted with the actual numbers to try and keep forcing an argument that isn't there.

If Wilt averaged 24 ppg and Russell 20, I wouldn't have started this thread. I started this thread because Wilt doubles Russell in pts (30 to 15), because Wilt scored 50 ppg while Russell never scored over 20, because Wilt averaged a triple double while Russell never averaged over 6 assists, because Wilt shot 54% from the field in his career while Russell averaged 44%, and because, although advanced metrics weren't a thing back then, all the advanced metrics that can be figured out from back then favour Wilt.

So once again, I'm gonna kindly ask you to stop trying to force a debate that isn't there and that even you don't believe. Wilt/Russell isn't remotely close to being Shaq/Duncan.

Why isn’t it there? What is the cut off? I am still not sure what your argument with regards to wilt vs russell is. Is it because wilt had much better stats? If so, then what is “much better”?

Besides, you have already made up your mind that wilt is better than Russell because he had way better stats, why bother with the question at all? There wasn’t a debate in your mind it seems so what’s the point of asking?

[DAF86]

Why isn’t it there? What is the cut off? I am still not sure what your argument with regards to wilt vs russell is. Is it because wilt had much better stats? If so, then what is “much better”?

Besides, you have already made up your mind that wilt is better than Russell because he had way better stats, why bother with the question at all? There wasn’t a debate in your mind it seems so what’s the point of asking?

30 to 15 is "much better".

Do you have an actual take? Who do you think is better of the two?

[ambchang]

30 to 15 is "much better".

Do you have an actual take? Who do you think is better of the two?

So the exact criteria is wilt vs russell?

I think wilt is a better individual player than russell but Russell is the far better teammate, but if they switched places russell the Celtics will not win anything close to 11 titles because wilt was a selfish stat padder. If wilt played selflessly he’d not a rage anything close to 30. If Russell played selfishly he’d average much more than 15.

Russell is the GOAT defensive player for a reason, wilt could’ve been but he’d rather spend his time scoring and getting rebounds because they go on stat sheets.

If the warriors had russell they win more than one single title.

[DAF86]

So the exact criteria is wilt vs russell?

I think wilt is a better individual player than russell but Russell is the far better teammate, but if they switched places russell the Celtics will not win anything close to 11 titles because wilt was a selfish stat padder. If wilt played selflessly he’d not a rage anything close to 30. If Russell played selfishly he’d average much more than 15.

Russell is the GOAT defensive player for a reason, wilt could’ve been but he’d rather spend his time scoring and getting rebounds because they go on stat sheets.

If the warriors had russell they win more than one single title.

Was that so hard to do, instead of circling around a retarded premise that made no sense? :lol

FWIW, it's hard to argue this without having actually seen the guys play, but the 44% Russell shot on a stacked team makes me think he wouldn't be very effective as a primary offensive option, let alone win, on a less talented roster.

In the end, I stuck with my gut feeling that if you replace Russell, with a better player in Wilt, the Celtics would have still won a shit ton of championships, tbh.

[ambchang]

Was that so hard to do, instead of circling around a retarded premise that made no sense? :lol

FWIW, it's hard to argue this without having actually seen the guys play, but the 44% Russell shot on a stacked team makes me think he wouldn't be very effective as a primary offensive option, let alone win, on a less talented roster.

In the end, I stuck with my gut feeling that if you replace Russell, with a better player in Wilt, the Celtics would have still won a shit ton of championships, tbh.

Point is the stats were misleading and counting stats are hard to use in this context, which with your superior intellect couldn’t comprehend. Especially when in those days when the game and stats were way less advanced than they are now.

Ultimately point still stands, you can’t use stats to act as some sort of objective view and then throw in qualifiers about much better vs slightly better. I just illustrated you used stats as a crutch to your already determined opinion of wilt!> russell and chose to flip out when challenged.

[lefty]

Is it safe to say that if he would have ended in the Celtics, instead of Russell, he would be the undisputed GOAT right now?

easily

And Russell shot like 40% :lol

[DAF86]

Point is the stats were misleading and counting stats are hard to use in this context, which with your superior intellect couldn’t comprehend. Especially when in those days when the game and stats were way less advanced than they are now.

Ultimately point still stands, you can’t use stats to act as some sort of objective view and then throw in qualifiers about much better vs slightly better. I just illustrated you used stats as a crutch to your already determined opinion of wilt!> russell and chose to flip out when challenged.

Oh, I could comprehend just fine your flawed attempt at trying to make a point, but the Shaq/Duncan analogy was just dumb. If anything, Wilt/ Russell is closer to Shaq/Ben Wallace than Shaq/Duncan.

At the end of the day, when the difference is 30 pts vs 15 pts and 54% from the field vs 44%, it is pretty safe to asume the 30/54% player was the better one, despite how misleading counting stats can get, tbh.

[ambchang]

Oh, I could comprehend just fine your flawed attempt at trying to make a point, but the Shaq/Duncan analogy was just dumb. If anything, Wilt/ Russell is closer to Shaq/Ben Wallace than Shaq/Duncan.

At the end of the day, when the difference is 30 pts vs 15 pts and 54% from the field vs 44%, it is pretty safe to asume the 30/54% player was the better one, despite how misleading counting stats can get, tbh.

Not necessarily true. Ben wallace averaged 5.7 ppg and shot 47% from the field, Sheed 14.4 and 47% as well. I would take both over, say Shareef Abdul Rahim or Antawn Jamison.

Your original premise was never around the chasm in scoring. Russell had similar rebounding numbers, and blocks weren't even kept yet. If you wanted to say Wilt doubled Russell in scoring while shooting 10% better, you should have said it. Your original premise was better stats, it was poorly stated if it was your intention to point out the gigantic difference. After being pointed out, you just added in qualifiers.

Besides, if you could comprehend just fine the point how counting stats were flawed, you wouldn't have based your entire argument on counting stats.

[DAF86]

Not necessarily true. Ben wallace averaged 5.7 ppg and shot 47% from the field, Sheed 14.4 and 47% as well. I would take both over, say Shareef Abdul Rahim or Antawn Jamison.

Your original premise was never around the chasm in scoring. Russell had similar rebounding numbers, and blocks weren't even kept yet. If you wanted to say Wilt doubled Russell in scoring while shooting 10% better, you should have said it. Your original premise was better stats, it was poorly stated if it was your intention to point out the gigantic difference. After being pointed out, you just added in qualifiers.

Besides, if you could comprehend just fine the point how counting stats were flawed, you wouldn't have based your entire argument on counting stats.

The fuck do you know what my original premise was? :lol

My original premise was that stats indicate Wilt was the clearly superior player, because of all the stats I knew, including PPG, FG%, Assts, and the few advanced metrics that can be calculated from that era.

[ambchang]

The fuck do you know what my original premise was? :lol

My original premise was that stats indicate Wilt was the clearly superior player, because of all the stats I knew, including PPG, FG%, Assts, and the few advanced metrics that can be calculated from that era.

And that shows your knowledge of how advanced stats were calculated in the era. And yet my argument is retarded. It’s not hard to look that stuff up.

[DAF86]

And that shows your knowledge of how advanced stats were calculated in the era. And yet my argument is retarded. It’s not hard to look that stuff up.

Those stats weren't calculated on that era, they are calculated now with the data that exists. :lol

[ambchang]

Those stats weren't calculated on that era, they are calculated now with the data that exists. :lol

I sent you the link. Read it.

[DAF86]

:lol

[FrostKing]

End of Wilt's career

At 36 he is 4th in MVP voting but the team gets back door swept in the Finals

Sits out the following season attempting to play in a different league. Never suits up for the NBA again.


No way he makes it in Boston :lol

[KobesAchilles]

Wilt is the goat now. Yeah Jordan won more championships. But Jordan didn’t have to play teams with 8 HOFs on them. If Jordan faced Steph, Klay, Curry, Durant and elite role players today fill out the roster then Jordan wouldn’t have 6 rings. It’s basically what Wilt had to do. Also Jordan didn’t average that many assists or rebounds or blocks. And he tied Wilt in scoring but never had a 50 piece like Wilt did.

Jordan is overrated as far as GOATs go. I have him 3rd behind Wilt and Lebron. Also an underrated fact that nobody brings up is how much better an athlete Wilt is compared to literally every other player who ever played the game. I can’t think of one player today or yesteryear who could average 48 minutes a game in a season. Add to the fact that he didn’t fly private and was in a bus for most of the trips and played in the shittiest basketball shoes known to man, it’s crazy. In a draft there is nobody im taking over Wilt. Dude averages the most points, rebounds, and blocks plus puts up great assist numbers for a big man. Plus he was a legit 7 footer and you can’t teach size. It’s way easier to build around Wilt than anybody else in league history.

[TDMVPDPOY]

theres actually a game 7 lakers vs boston on yt wilt vs russell

doesnt look like wilt uses athleticism to dominate, he wonr be jukpin over the 90s centers for points n rebs when he cant do that to russell

[MultiTroll]

Game 7 1969

Before the injury, Chamberlain had 18 points and 27 rebounds. With their big center on the bench, however, the Lakers made a comeback. Chamberlain’s replacement, seven-footer Mel Counts, hit a jumper that brought LA within a point at 103-102. According to Robert Cherry’s book, Wilt: Larger than Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt:_Larger_than_Life), Chamberlain iced the knee and told coach Butch van Breda Kolff he was ready to return.
He never did. The Celtics won 108-106. Chamberlain’s view was that the coach was spiteful and wanted to show he could win without him.
Cherry wrote: Someone once said to van Breda Kolff that two careers had been ruined by the 1969 Finals: Wilt’s because he wouldn’t take over and van Breda Kolff’s because he wouldn’t give in. “That’s probably true,” van Breda Kolff declared to the author.

[Ef-man]

Wilt was a force of nature and there has been no equal.

Only player to score 100 points in one game.

Has single-game record for rebounds, 55.

There were 5 rule that were changed because of him:
-Offensive Goaltending
-Defensive Goaltending
-Size of the lane/paint (from 6 to 12 feet)
-Free throw shooting (players cannot cross the plane of the free-throw line, even if your feet are not touching the ground, until the ball hits the rim or passes through the basket)
-Inbounding the Ball (lobbing the ball in from the baseline directly over the backboard so a player could catch it near the basket)

Most seasons leading the league in minutes: 8

Highest scoring average in a season: 50.4

Most seasons leading the league in field goal percentage: 9

Highest average in rebounds over a career: 22.9

Tied for most free throws made in a game: 28

Never disqualified from an NBA game

[lefty]

Earl Boykins would have averaged 40 pog in Wilt’s era

[z0sa]

Wilt is my personal, biased favorite for the GOAT, but objectively, is a clear case of different eras being incomparable.

I still think he'd average 30/20 in today's game. His team might not win much in today's game, but that was always Wilt's problem anyway.